Friday, November 28, 2014

McGurn's proposition? That the president issue an executive order recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capitol.

He attempts to make the case that this would actually benefit the president by improving his relationship with congress by doing something it wants done,and that it would "show that this president is committed to the connection of the Jewish people to the heart of the Jewish homeland."

He writes that it would give President Obama more credibility in opposing Israeli PM Netanyahu's policies,that it might actually improve the climate for negotiations for a Palestinian state, and that it might preempt congressional action on the matter with the new Republican dominated congress.

Now, all this is an admirable sentiment,and some of the benefits Mr. McGurn spells out here actually are real and tangible.But can anyone even imagine President Obama caring about that for a moment? Are you kidding?

Aside from the fact he could care less about having a good working relationship with congress, let's not forget that he has done nothing since he was quite young but hang out and be influenced by anti-semites and Israel bashers, including Frank Marshall Davis, Jeremiah Wright, Al Sharpton, Edward Said, Rashid Khalidi et al. An animus against Israel is practically wired into his DNA.If congress passed legislation recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capitol, he would veto it without a second thought, even if his fellow Democrats begged him not to.

He came into office in 2009 pledging to create 'daylight' between America and Israel. His feelings about Israel are so innate as to be unchangeable. In fact, that's one reason Former defense Secretary Hagel got the axe..After getting to know the Israelis better, Hagel had changed his views quite a bit. Remember Obama's reaction during the Gaza War when he found out the Pentagon was following its normal policy and shipping Israel arms it had already paid for? He held up the shipments of things like Hellfire missiles for 'State Department review' in the middle of a war, and Israel didn't receive them until well after the war was over. That has never happened before, not since the US first began selling Israel arms during the Nixon administration.

I have good sources in Israel, and I can assure you that while some parts continue to work (such as long standing cooperation between the two militaries)this president and his team have severely damaged America's relationship with one of our most important allies to the point that it is going to take a lot of time and a huge amount of work to repair it. The Israelis themselves never imagined an anti-Israel president in the White House, and the shock was deep. The Israelis are not even certain at this point about one of the key benefits for them in the relationship, America using its Security Council veto to shut down blatantly anti-Israel resolutions in the anti-semitic fun house the UN has become.

President Obama is probably less likely to do anything that shows 'he has Israel's back' than a pig would be to suddenly start singing Broadway show tunes. It would simply be an unnatural act for him.

In fairness, Mr. McGurn seems to realize this, although perhaps not how deep seated the reasons for it are.

But if he realizes that it's something President Barack Hussein Obama would never do, I can't quite see the point of the article either. And rest assured, this by itself would not reassure the Israelis or give the president any added credibility with them given President Obama's track record. Instead, they would immediately be worrying what dagerous concessions he forced Netanyahu to agree to in exchange.

Since I break the ties, Bookworm's insightful piece takes the honors this week. Here's a slice:

There are some words that, as a writer, I’ve always wanted to use. One of those words is “cadaverous,” which I think is just a lovely, almost Dickensian word. Having attended last night’s delightful PRI Gala dinner, I finally have that chance. But let me start at the beginning….

I don’t usually attend galas. Indeed, I don’t ever attend galas, since I am almost pathologically cheap and, no matter how much I admire the speaker or expect the company to be delightful, I simply cannot make myself pay several hundred dollars for a dinner and speech. Add to that the fact that it’s disrespectful for me to spend huge sums of money on a political cause that my husband finds distasteful, and galas and I are not a common pairing. I only was able to attend the PRI event thanks to the incredible generosity of a local Marin conservative who sponsored a table and invited me to be one of his guests.

The event was held at the Fairmont, atop Nob Hill, which is one of the truly grand dame hotels in the world. The Fairmont was in the process of being built when the ’06 quake struck, causing severe damage. Once the dust cleared, building on the hotel resumed with help from architect Julia Morgan (of Hearst Castle fame), who had all sorts of wonderful ideas about reinforced concrete for structural integrity. In 1945, the Fairmont hosted the meetings that culminated in the United Nation’s creation. The hotel is sufficiently charming and magnificent that I forgive it for being the venue that gave birth to that appalling antisemitic, anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-freedom, and anti-individualism organization. But as I so often do, I digress.

For me, there were only two problems with the evening: First, the table at which I sat was so large, and the volume of conversation so loud, that I was only able to speak to the men (very nice, interesting men) to my immediate left and right, which meant that there was a whole table full of manifestly intriguing people with whom I did not exchange a single word. Second, Steven Hayward, from Power Line, was supposed to speak there, but an attack of bronchitis kept him away. I’m a big admirer and was disappointed that I couldn’t meet him. The fact that those were was my only disappointments tells you that it was a damn fine evening indeed.

The food was exquisite (I love filet mignon), the speeches ranged from interesting to very interesting, and I was delighted to see former California Governor Pete Wilson receive the Sir Antony Fisher Freedom Award. I have a special reason for that delight. You see, just as in the 1980s I was a Democrat who utterly failed to appreciate what an extraordinary man, thinker, and politician Reagan was, I was still a Democrat in the 1990s, and therefore utterly failed to appreciate what an extraordinary man, thinker, and politician Wilson was. I grossly underestimated the measure of the man back then, and was therefore so pleased to stand up and applaud him now. (To appreciate what a great governor he was — a fact that the MSM successfully obscured in the 1990s for unthinking young Democrats like me — check out the Wikipedia article’s incomplete list of his accomplishments.)

After Gov. Wilson received his award and gave a short talk, the mike was turned over to the evening’s featured speaker, Brit Hume — and this is where I get to use the word “cadaverous.” I need to start out by explaining that, since I watch TV only occasionally (to satisfy my low passion for Dancing With the Stars or to see Maggie Smith in Downton Abbey), I had no idea who Brit Hume was sufficient to justify his role as a keynote speaker at a PRI gala. You probably know that he’s a former ABC correspondent and a current Fox News analyst. I did not know that.

My ignorance about Hume extended to his looks. I had no idea what he looked like. When I realized who he was, I went over to introduce myself and shake his hand, which took all of 10 seconds. (At NOUS events, protocol is to greet the speaker, and there are penalties for those who fail to do so. Having become familiar with this requirement, I like it and, if I can, extend it to all events that I attend.) Hume is very tall, and quite thin, and he has a slightly hound-doggish face, with a grayish cast to his complexion. He is a very nice looking man — but he is also somewhat cadaverous looking. (And there’s that word.) He’s not cadaverous in the sense of “corpse-like” but in the sense of “haggard and thin.” You TV watchers also already know what else I discovered about him, which is that he has a deep, lovely voice with a very slight Southern drawl.

Hume spoke about politics; Juan Williams; his start in an old-fashioned newspaper, complete with clattering typewriters and cigar-chomping copy editor; and Obama’s planned amnesty. It was this last that riveted my attention. Hume, whom I would describe as a very centrist Republican, had put together a laundry-list of things that Republicans shouldn’t do once Obama announces his amnesty. It was a comprehensive list. He started by noting that, because Republicans lack a Senate majority, Hume says it’s unlikely that they’ll be able to put together a veto-proof anything to block the amnesty and, failing that ability, any bills the Republican Congress passes will be a waste of time and the media will use any such efforts to paint Republicans as racist and selfish.

Hume also argued strongly that the House most certainly shouldn’t try to use the power of the purse to block Obama from putting the amnesty into effect because doing so will only precipitate another stand-off and shutdown. According to Hume, polls consistently reveal that voters hate shutdowns and, thanks to the media, that they always blame the Republicans, even though the president is arguably the true proximate cause. (I have a different feeling about shutdowns and the accompanying theater. Hume, incidentally, made clear that he has the lowest possible opinion of Cruz and the Tea Party.)

Impeachment, said Hume, is a no-go. The last time Republicans did that, it ended very badly for them. Just as with shutdowns, the public is hostile to this type of thing and, thanks to the media, it’s always the Republicans’ fault.

A lawsuit? Well, it’s true that Obama is acting outside of his Constitutional authority, but Hume believes that Congress will be found to lack standing to sue because it will not have sustained a direct injury as a result of the amnesty.

In our non-Council category, the winner was Dennis Prager – We Have a Moral Divide, Not a Racial One submitted by Joshuapundit. It's one of the better observations I've seeninprint about what ails America.

Here are this week’s full results. Only Bookworm was unable to vote this week,but was not subject to the usual 2/3 vote penalty:

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. and every Tuesday morning, when we reveal the weeks' nominees for Weasel of the Week!

And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it...or any of the other fantabulous Watcher's Council content.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y'know?

Thursday, November 27, 2014

Once again, It's time to present this week's statuette of shame, The Golden Weasel!!

Every Tuesday, the Council nominates some of the slimiest, most despicable characters in public life for some deed of evil, cowardice or corruption they’ve performed. Then we vote to single out one particular Weasel for special mention, to whom we award the statuette of shame, our special, 100% plastic Golden Weasel. This week's nominees were all slime-worthy,but in the end the winner by a nose was..the envelope please...

The P5+1 And U.S. Secretary Of State John Kerry!!

JoshuaPundit: For allowing Iran to play them for even more time in 'negotiations' while Iran gets closer to having a nuclear weapon. The latest deadline (giggle) ended November 24th, with the Iranians still refusing even basic concessions like reducing the number of centrifuges, changing their heavy water reactor at Arak to a light water one incapable of increasing plutonium, ceasing all ballistic missile activity or even disclosing info on their program, or even a reliable verification program.

Kerry's reaction? After a year of sheer horse manure that has accomplished nothing except to dismantle the sanctions regime and give badly needed billions to this fascist regime,Kerry and the P5+1 are begging Iran to continue the talks for another 7 months, until July 2015. They've caved on everything. The weakness this projects to the Iranians can only be imagined and it's weaselness that threatens both our country and the peace of the world

Ah, and the Iranians know it too! Let's listen to what a couple of them had to say just a few days ago...like 'moderate Iranian prez Hassan Rouhani:

“Today we have a victory much greater than what happened in the negotiation. This victory is that our circumstances are not like previous years. Today we are at a point that nobody in the world can say sanctions must be increased in order to make Iran accept P5+1 demands.”

“Centrifuges have been running and I promise the Iranian nation that centrifuges will never stop.”

Oh, and here's Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari, commander of the Iranian Revolution Guards:

“The Americans have very clearly surrendered to Iran’s might, and this is obvious in their behavior in the region and in the negotiations, and the enemies’ reservations vis-a-vis Iran are completely felt.”

You certainly can't blame them a bit, dealing with the likes of Kerry and EU rep Catherine Ashton, now can you? And as far as 'negotiations' go apparently all Iran’s foreign minister and lead negotiator Mohammed Javad Zarif has to do to pry more concessions out of these two is to start screaming at them!

I seem to have read that Hitler used to use the same tactic with Neville Chamberlain before the Munich sellout..apparently the tactic works well aimed at a certain type of person. Come to think of it, the Socialists were in charge of France back then too, along with an almost totally disarmed Britain - like today.

Ah well, at this point, there aren't many concessions left to give up anyway. A triumph of diplomacy! And a clear indication of what comes next.

Secretary Kerry,come up to the stage and get your richly deserved Weasel. Oh, the inscription? We had it done in Farsi. We thought it would be a nice touch.

Well, there it is!

Check back next Tuesday to see who next week's nominees for Weasel of the Week are!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum, and remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it...or any of the other fantabulous Watcher's Council content.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y'know?

Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Ann Coulter's latest on Ferguson, the Left and the racial grievance industry is right on target. Here's a slice:

The riot in Ferguson reminds me, I hate criminals, but I hate liberals more. They planned this riot. They stoked the fire, lied about the evidence and produced a made-to-order riot.

Every other riot I've ever heard of was touched off by some spontaneous event that exploded into mob violence long before any media trucks arrived. This time, the networks gave us a countdown to the riot, as if it were a Super Bowl kickoff.

From the beginning, Officer Darren Wilson's shooting of Michael Brown wasn't reported like news. It was reported like a cause.

The media are in a huff about the prosecutor being "biased" because his father was a cop, who was shot and killed by an African-American. What an assh@le! Evidently, the sum-total of what every idiot on TV knows about the law is Judge Sol Wachtler's 20-year-old joke that a prosecutor could "indict a ham sandwich." We're supposed to be outraged that this prosecutor didn't indict the ham sandwich of Darren Wilson. Liberals seem not to understand that they don't have a divine right to ruin someone's life and bankrupt him with a criminal trial, just so they're satisfied.

The reason most grand jury investigations result in an indictment is that most grand juries aren't convened solely to patronize racial mobs. Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon was basically demanding an indictment of Wilson before Big Mike's body was cold. It was only because of racial politics that this shooting wasn't dismissed without a grand jury, at all.
Obama says anger is an "understandable reaction" to the grand jury's finding. Why? And why -- as almost everyone is saying -- are we supposed to praise the "peaceful protests"?

There's nothing to protest! A cop shot a thug who was trying to kill him. The grand jury documents make perfectly clear that Big Mike was entirely responsible for his own death. Can't the peaceful protesters read?

The night of the riot, Obama said the law "often feels as if it is being applied in discriminatory fashion." Maybe, but not in this case -- except toward Officer Wilson. i>

I know liberals were hoping they had finally found the great white whale of racism, but they're just going to have to keep plugging away. They might want to come up with a more productive way to spend their time, inasmuch as they're about 0:100 on white racism sightings.

Anyone following this case has seen the video of Big Mike robbing a store and roughing up an innocent Pakistani clerk about 10 minutes before being shot by Officer Wilson. They've seen him flashing Bloods gang signs in photos.

They know Brown's mother was recently arrested for clubbing grandma with a pipe over T-shirt proceeds. They've seen the video of Brown's ex-con stepfather shouting at a crowd of protesters after the grand jury's decision: "Burn this bitch down!"

Liberals will say none of that is relevant in court, but apparently they don't think actual evidence is relevant either. It's certainly relevant in the court of public opinion that the alleged victims are a cartoonishly lower-class, periodically criminal black family.

TV hosts narrated the riot by saying it showed "the community" feels it's not being listened to. Only liberals look at blacks looting and say, See what white Americans made them do?

That's their proof of injustice -- look at how blacks are reacting! (While I don't approve of the looting part, I do approve of the whole throwing-bottles-at-CNN part.)

The looters aren't the community!

The community doesn't want black thugs robbing stores and sauntering down the middle of its streets. The community doesn't want to be assaulted by Big Mike. The community didn't want its stores burned down.

Two reporters for Pravda-on-the-Hudson (and apparently their editors)thought it would be awfully cute to publish the home address of officer Darren Williams and his wife. They did this in full knowledge of the $5,000 cash bounty radical black groups have placed on Wilson's head, and the $1,000 bounty on any member of his family. They did it in full knowledge of the threats of rape and murder levied against Wilson as well as other police in Ferguson and their families.

New York Times reporters Julie Bosman and Campbell Robertson published the address of Darren Wilson in the New York Times so here are their addresses.

…It would be wrong, for example, to publish Bosman’s address at

5620 N WAYNE AVE APT 2
CHICAGO, IL 60660-4204
COOK COUNTY

It would be similarly wrong to publish the address of Robertson, too.

1113 N DUPRE ST
NEW ORLEANS, LA 70119-3203
ORLEANS COUNTY

So why do journalists think they are beyond examination?

How does it advance the story to know where Darren Wilson and his newly wed live?

You can also tweet Bosman, @juliebosman. Robertson's is @campbellnyt, and his e-mail at last report is carobe@nytimes.com

Of course, this isn't remotely equitable. These two genuinely awful people aren't under a threat of death the way Wilson and his wife are. Nor are they going to be forced to sell a home under duress when they're already under considerable stress or be forced to spend the money to move quickly simply to protect their physical safety...which is also going to saddle them with double house payments until they can sell or rent the old one. And that's going to take some time, because who's going to want to move into a house with a target painted on it?

Nevertheless, here are their addresses, so that you can communicate to them directly about your feelings on the matter.

Hopefully the Wilsons can sue the pants off of these people and the foul publication they work for.
UPDATE: Thanks To Terresa at The Noisy Room, we now have phone numbers! Campbell's is 504-218-7703. Bosman's is 312-552-7204 (work) and 646-753-2052 (mobile).

Welcome to the Watcher's Council, a blogging group consisting of some of the most incisive blogs in the 'sphere, and the longest running group of its kind in existence. Every week, the members nominate two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council.Then we vote on the best two posts, with the results appearing on Friday morning.

Council News:

The Council In Action!!

Tom White of Virginia Right is increasing in awesomeness every time we turn around! Aside from his status as a political guru in the Old Dominion, being virtually alone in predicting Dave Brat's upset victory, he's now becoming a local go to on other issues as well.

This week, he was cited in the Richmond Post-Dispatch, was interviewed on WRIC, the local ABC outlet and linked to on the station's website after he wrote a big story locally about how parents in his locality were upset by the odd use of the name 'Jihad' in a kid's math problem, which goes along with the Muslim Brotherhood line about 'jihad' merely meaning 'struggle' and thus normal behavior...even though all four Muslim fiqhs (Muslim schools of jurisprudence) agree that it's primary use is to refer to holy war against the infidel. Here's Tom in action:

You just know that the retired teacher they let follow him is a hard core Democrat, right? Outstanding, sir.

And speaking of outstanding, there's another little matter we need to get to. Tom White just had a birthday that slipped by my notice, so it's time for a belated festiva, que sabe?

This little number is called a Shadow Cake...yellow sponge with homemade chocolate buttercream, with some candy roses on top.

And to drink, I'm going to resist the urge to go local and splurge on some Veuve Cliqot.

And, for those of you whom indulge, some wondrous Virginia moonshine, manufactured by men who despise both the revenooers (don't we all?) and the idea of turning perfectly good corn into ethanol. Instead, they provide us with this nectar.

Slanje, Lechaim and Kempai!

Tom is what used to be referred to as a Renaissance man, someone who does many things superbly well. Aside from his undoubted blogging talent (he was chosen a top political blogger by the AFP in the 2012 elections), he's a highly accomplished singer/songwriter who gigs locally and has his own studio, is highly active in Virginia politics, runs his own insurance agency, and is a top IT consultant as well.

Of course, all that aside, he's a great guy and a firm friend. He's never failed to help out any of us who are mired in techi-type difficulties, and that especially applies to me. Although none of us on the Council have ever met him personally, he was our unanimous choice to be the Council's treasurer, which is just a small indication of the respect we have for him and the esteem we hold him in.

Me? All I'll say is that from minute one, Tom was one of those people I instinctively liked. And also on the plus side, he puts up with me..how good is that?

You can, too! Want to see your work appear on the Watcher’s Council homepage in our weekly contest listing? Didn’t get nominated by a Council member? No worries.

To bring something to my attention, simply head over to Joshuapundit and post the title and a link to the piece you want considered along with an e-mail address (mandatory, but of course it won't be published) in the comments section no later than Monday 6PM PST in order to be considered for our honorable mention category. Then return the favor by creating a post on your site linking to the Watcher’s Council contest for the week when it comes out on Wednesday morning

Simple, no?

It's a great way of exposing your best work to Watcher’s Council readers and Council members while grabbing the increased traffic and notoriety. And how good is that, eh?

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

President Obama has now presented his amnesty by executive order to the country. Oddly enough, he appeared to want much of the country not to know exactly what he said. None of the alphabet networks covered this important speech, strange considering wall to wall coverage of the lame gibberish issuing out of this White House on other occasions.

The networks say that the White House never asked officially asked them for broadcast time for the speech. FOX wanted to broadcast it live according to one of my sources, but was told arrangements 'could not be made in time.'

The White House likely told their media allies they didn't want this one broadcast, which also explains why FOX was denied access.

But Spanish only networks Telemundo and Univision were certainly allowed to broadcast it. It's obvious which audience President Obama was targeting and whom he would rather wasn't paying too much attention.

He started out, of course, by blaming the GOP dominated House for failing to pass a deeply flawed bill that managed to squeak by in the senate some time ago, thanks to the wily Chuck Schumer playing a naive Marco Rubio like Jimi Hendrix used to play a Stratocaster. The president of course neglected to mention that all the House wanted was to meet with the Senate to effect what's called reconciliation, where both houses of congress meet and hammer out a version of legislation they can both support. After that, the House and Senate vote on the changes and the bill goes to the president for his signature.

This is standard operating procedure in congress. Guess who stopped it? None other than Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, who refused to have a reconciliation meeting with the House and demanded they pass the bill as is. When they wouldn't, it was Harry Reid who shelved it on the orders of President Obama. As usual, nothing is ever the president's fault He simply blamed other people for his failure, just like always.

The president also predictably failed to mention another reason legislation has consistently failed - because of his previous track record of ignoring laws he doesn't like, no one trusts him or his corrupt Attorney General Eric Holder to enforce any provision on border security. They haven't done so with present existing law and there's no doubt they would do the same thing with any new legislation.

That said, what does the president's new executive order actually consist of?

There are some throwaway paragraphs about border security, and about hiring a few more border patrol agents. Based on what they've been facing lately and what border patrol agents are saying right now, I doubt few people want the job even if he attempts to follow through on it, which is doubtful.

The president also claims he will make it "easier and faster for high-skilled immigrants, graduates and entrepreneurs' to avoid deportation." In other words, the small percentage of illegal migrants who have tech skills will now be able to work legally for the likes of Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg for a fraction of what he has to pay legal citizens, thus keeping wages in that segment of the economy low as a payback for all those campaign contributions.

Of course the biggest impact of the president's executive order is the one that affects the vast amount of illegal migrants whom don't really fall into the skilled category , and he left those for for last.

And before we examine this in detail, let's remember... President Obama's intention here is not 'humanitarian' but purely political. This is the new class of government dependent Democrat voters he wishes to create, and his way of deliberately signaling to the new congress that he has no intention of cooperating with them on anything.

What he said is that if illegal migrants have been in America more than five years, if they have children who are American citizens or illegal residents. If they register, pass a criminal background check and are willing to pay their fair share of taxes, they won't be deported.

Note the parts I emphasized.

First of all, it is going to be next to impossible to determine how long many illegal migrants has been in America assuming ICE even attempts to do so, doubtful given this president's track record. As usual, this president and his minions think everyone's stupid except themselves. Any illegal migrant with the least bit of savvy can find someone in one of the numerous Mexican consulates willing to crank out a matricula consular card with any name and dates the applicant wants for cash under the table. The going rate right now is about $75 - $100..not to mention that the cards themselves are very easily forged.

And aside from that, does anyone really think that your average illegal migrant won't be able to find people willing to swear he or she has been in the country five years? Or that ICE won't accept that as 'proof' given the president's political interest in keeping all of them here?

The next criteria, freeing from deportation those who have children who are American citizens or those who have children who are illegal migrants is even more of a giveaway. Anyone who’s at all aware of America's immigration policies knows that having a child who is an American citizen is a sure ticket to getting a green card and the accompanying social welfare benefits. Many potential illegal migrants know it, which is why many illegal migrants whom are pregnant strive to have the child born on American soil. The United States, remember, is one of the only countries that still has birthright citizenship and the newborn baby can in effect legalize the whole family. But the second category, 'those who have children who are illegal migrants' is the real stinger. What this president has done is to essentially extend blanket amnesty even to those who have children who didn't manage to get birthright citizenship by being born here.

After all, if they're legal citizens who happen to have a child who's an illegal migrant, there’s no worry about deportation and the child can get citizenship through normal legal channels. No, this little provision is designed to cover a lot more illegal migrants than the 5 million or so we're being told. And the president is also signalling that the recent rush of illegal migrants from Central America are going to be allowed to stay..and to import their parents and other family members.

That of course ranks the president's statement that "This deal does not apply to anyone who has come to this country recently" up with " If you like your health plan, you can keep it" as one of the more egregious lies he has ever told the American people. And that's a pretty high bar.

I think many American are already aware of the fact that a lot of illegal migrants whom have committed serious crimes are being allowed to stay, and that the Obama Administration lied about it. It's unlikely that they're going to be deported under the president's new executive order,which shows you how much you can believe the president when he talks about "focusing enforcement resources on actual threats to our security. Felons, not families."

And taxes? Many illegal aliens already file tax returns. And why not? For many of them, it's quite profitable.

The president claimed this isn't amnesty, merely freedom from deportation. And that this isn't citizenship or the right to stay here permanently, or access to the same benefits that citizens receive.

Aside from the benefits issue (anyone who knows anything about current law knows that illegal migrants will have full access to social welfare benefits, including ObamaCare), I give it a year at most before you hear the Democrats calling for a pathway to citizenship - and of course, voting rights - for the illegal migrants. That's the plan, guaranteed.

The president finished his remarks with his usual touch of cherry picking an example, appealing to America's natural generosity. He even attempted to quote Scripture, citing a passage in Exodus about oppressing a stranger. Of course, even that was bogus. The ancient Hebrews were invited to settle in Egypt as actual immigrants (Genesis 46-48) because of a famine in the land of Canaan, back when Joseph was the Pharaoh's Chief Minister. It was only after a new Pharaoh ascended 'who knew not Joseph' that the Hebrews were enslaved and oppressed (Exodus 1:8). And the actual passage in the Hebrew, of course, refers not to illegal migrants but to a ger, a convert to Judaism.

Here are a few things for those who think that President Obama did something wonderful here to ponder:

If this was done 'out of compassion,' or because, as he claims, the evil Republicans wouldn't give him what he wanted, why didn't he do it in the first two years of his term, when he had a veto-proof majority in the house and senate? Wasn't this important enough then ?

For years, this president has been telling Hispanics whom wanted this amnesty that he was simply unable to accommodate them, that he was not a king or a dictator, that he was unable to do what in fact he just did. How does it make you feel to have been cynically lied to all this time? Does it make you wonder what else President Obama has been lying to you about?

If you're black or Latino citizen making say, $40,000 or so as a delivery driver, a caregiver, a construction worker, a clerical or healthcare worker, are you aware that as this amnesty develops, you're now going to have to compete for your job with people willing to work for less, willing to take part time employment, willing to take less benefits and and poorer working conditions? Do you like the idea that it's going to be you dealing with rising rents for affordable housing, higher taxes, longer waits for medical care and other social services, and schools that become even more dysfunctional as they struggle to handle children whom aren't even literate in their own language?

If you'd like to see actual legislation dealing with immigration,do you think this president's disrespect for the incoming congress and the separation of powers makes that more likely or less likely? Do you like the idea of a president just disregarding laws like this? And if you do, are you at all worried about the precedent this sets if there's a different president in the White House?

The amnesty for illegal migrants the president has planned has nothing to do with 'compassion' nothing to dow ith the good of the country. Barack Hussein Obama is literally strangling the Eagle for what goes beyond even normal partisan political gain...his way of 'transforming' a country he secretly despises into something very different than the democratic republic our Founders envisioned and created.

Having failed to completely crush America's innate spirit and having had his persona andhis failed policies repudiated, he has simply decided to import enough people whom he feels he can manipulate... to transform the electorate to his liking.

Aside from the constitutional issues,what the president has done will encourage further illegal migration, cripple already struggling school districts, substantially raise the prices on affordable housing, raise taxes, depress wages increase unemployment and saddle America with huge social welfare costs in a stagnant economy.That cost, by the way is estimated at $2 trillion dollars by Robert Rector, the Heritage Foundation's expert on these matters, which I think is conservative since Rector is only calculating on the basis of four million illegal migrants, seems to be discounting the effect of chain migration and the influx of new illegal migrants and is only calculating for Social Security and Medicare.

So can this be stopped? Of course it can.I'll tell you how in Part II.

Hello and welcome to the Watcher's Council's 'Weasel Of The Week' nominations, where we award the famed golden plastic Weasel to a public figure who particularly deserves to be slimed and mocked for his or her dastardly deeds during the week. Every Tuesday morning, tune in for the Weasel of the Week nominations and check back Thursday to see which Weasel gets the votes and walks off with the statuette of shame!

The Independent Sentinel : My weasel of the week is the Cleveland City Council especially councilmen Matt Zone and Joe Cimperman who suggested we have to get used to people of any gender using any bathroom.

Businesses and individuals who voice concerns or express discomfort will be subject to a $1000 fine. This is to please the less than 1% of the population who call themselves transgender.

"This is common sense legislation, and it's long overdue," Zone asserted, noting that the ordinance does not mandate businesses to provide separate restroom or locker room facilities or signs warning unsuspecting visitors. "We're in the 21st century, and it would allow Clevelanders to feel comfortable in their own environment and to use facilities that they're most comfortable with."

El Presidente Y Jefe Barack Hussein Obama!!

Rhymes With Right:Barack Hussein Obama, who by executive decree has declared the Constitution, and with it the principle of separation of powers, is null and void and that therefore all powers granted to Congress shall instead reside in the hands of the President in the event he does not approve of their decision not to pass laws that he demands be passed.

The P5+1 And Particularly Secretary Of State John Kerry!!

JoshuaPundit: For allowing Iran to play them for even more time in 'negotiations' while Iran gets closer to having a nuclear weapon. The latest deadline (giggle) ended November 24th, with the Iranians still refusing even basic concessions like reducing the number of centrifuges, changing their heavy water reactor at Arak to a light water one incapable of increasing plutonium, ceasing all ballistic missile activity or even disclosing info on their program, or even a reliable verification program.

Kerry's reaction? After a year of sheer horse manure that has accomplished nothing except to dismantle the sanctions regime and give badly needed billions to this fascist regime,Kerry and the P5+1 are begging Iran to continue the talks for another 7 months, until July 2015. They've caved on everything. The weakness this projects to the Iranians can only be imagined and it's weaselness that threatens both our country and the peace of the world.

Well, there it is! Are these worthy weasels or what? Check back Thursday to see which Weasel walks off with the statuette of shame!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum.

And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it...or any of the other fantabulous Watcher's Council content.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y'know?

Monday, November 24, 2014

As expected, the grand jury refusing to indict Officer Darren Wilson over the shooting death of Michael Brown has led to the expected rioting and looting.

So far, the Family Dollar on Florissant has been cleaned out, as well as a BP and a McDonalds. Lots of rocks, bricks and even some gunshots and molotov cocktails as well.

I doubt it would have mattered whether Officer Wilson was indicted or not. If he had been there would be 'celebration' rioting. There's a certain kind of mentality at work here.

By the way, I also have to express my condolences to Attorney Benjamin Crump.First Trayvon and now this. Poor guy just can't seem to get a payday. And he needs ties that didn't obviously come off the budget rack at Ross's.

President Obama (of course!) had something to say as well. Some stations carried his remarks on a split screen with the rioting and looting on one half and he and his teleprompter on the other. Here's a slice:

"We shouldn't try to paper it over," said Obama. "Whenever we do that the anger may momentarily subside, but over time it builds up. And America isn't everything that it could be. And I am confident that if we focus our attention on the problem and we look at what has happened in communities around the country effectively, then we can make progress not just in Ferguson but in a lot of other cities and communities around the country."

Ah,I see. It's America's fault that Michael Brown got high, committed a strong arm robbery at a convenience store and pulled off a crazy, probably suicidal move like assaulting a cop in a police vehicle and trying to take his gun away from him? Ohhh-kay.

It is ironic to see the president now calling for calm when he and his pal Al Sharpton did so much to gin this up in the first place, but I guess that's just how things went down. Couldn't have had anything to do with the futile attempt to bump up black turnout for the midterms, right?

The prosecuting attorney, St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch has just addressed the media to inform them of the Grand Jury's decision.

They pretty much went along with the facts revealed here and elsewhere.

The prosecuting attorney described the coordination between the St. Louis County investigation and the federal investigation of the Departmwent of Justice, that they shared information and that their conclusions were essentially the same.

H described the theft at the convenience store, said that the evidence showed that Michael Brown was the aggressor, that he attempted to take Officer Darren Wilson's gun inside the vehicle, and that the physical evidence revealed that a lot of the 'eyewitnesses' accounts were simply bogus, and had no relation to that physical evidence. The prosecuting attorney went over some of the fairy tales, and also revealed that a lot of them changed their story once they were confronted with the physical evidence.

All three autopsies were consistent. There were also many witnesses who said that Brown had his hands stretched out ,or clenched into fists and that he was shot as he continued to move towards Officer Wilson after being ordered to stop.

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has been fired.His tenure was less than two years.

His departure comes after a long period of disagreement with President Obama over what Hagel saw as disastrous budget and manpower cuts by the White House that affected American military capabilities, disagreements of the president's strategies in Afghanistan and in both the nature and the methods used to fight Islamic State.

Basically, he was fired for telling the Emperor that he was naked. And as a convenient scapegoat for the Administration's failures.

According to one of my sources, what clinched it was his disagreement with the president about the need for ground forces in Iraq to fight Islamic State. His statement about 'not wanting to put boots on the ground where they are needed' contradicted the president directly and made him a target for Obama's consigliere Valerie Jarrett, who reportedly went ballistic, pushed hard for Hagel's firing, saying that 'these people in the Pentagon needs to remember who they work for.'

Hagel's parting shot was an interview he did with PBS's Charlie Rose last week in an interview Rose conducted at the Pentagon:

Rose asked Hagel to elaborate on comments that he made in a speech at the Reagan Library last weekend. In that speech, Hagel said that America’s military capability, while still the best in the world, is being threatened.

Hagel re-iterated that to Rose, but also left viewers to wonder about the direction that President Obama is taking the military.

“I am worried about it, I am concerned about it, Chairman Dempsey is, the chiefs are, every leader of this institution,” Hagel said, including Pentagon leadership but leaving both President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden’s names out of his list of officials who are worried about the U.S. military’s declining capability. Hagel said that the Congress and the American people need to know what while the U.S. military remains the strongest, best trained and most motivated in the world, its lead is being threatened because of policies being implemented now.

Hagel went on to note that a good leader prepares their institution for future success, saying that “the main responsibility of any leader is to prepare your institution for the future. If you don’t do that, you’ve failed. I don’t care how good you are, how smart you are, any part of your job. If you don’t prepare your institution, you’ve failed.”

In the past couple of years, Hagel has warned that defense budget cuts implemented under President Obama were hurting readiness and capability. The “how smart you are” line may be a veiled shot at President Obama, who basks in a media image that he is a cerebral, professorial president.

Another mark against Hagel was that he reportedly underwent something of a change of views regarding Israel during his tenure as Secretary of Defense, especially during the Gaza War that did not jibe with the president. He came to see Israel as a more important ally than he had previously indicated, and facilitated arms shipments to Israel during the last Gaza War.

Once President Obama realized that the Pentagon was okaying arms shipments in a way that that would have been normal under any other administration but that he objected to, he stopped shipments of armaments like Hellfire missiles to Israel that the Israelis had already paid for in the middle of the Gaza War and held them up for 'State Department review.' This had never been done previously to Israel in a war situation. The Israelis did not receive the shipments until after the war was over, and Hagel reportedly caught a great deal of flak over it.

Chuck Hagel will continue to serve as Secretary of Defense until a new one is nominated and confirmed.

I did not support Chuck Hagel when he was nominated as SecDef, especially after his sub par confirmation hearing. However, sometimes people rise above their limitations when put in a position of responsibility, just as they sometimes fail to do so. Chuck Hagel had the ability to see that something was horribly wrong with the way President Obama was handling matters of defense and national security, and the courage to say so to the president.

There are some presidents who have had the ability to absorb contradictory views and use them to make their determinations, even modify their perceptions. Unfortunately, the president Chuck Hagel served is not one of them. Instead, he's one whom no one can tell anything to that contradicts his own, set in stone ideas. He perceives anyone who deviates from that in any way as disloyal, and for that sin, Chuck Hagel had to go.

Every week on Monday morning , the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher's Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week's question: What was your reaction to the President's New Executive Order On Immigration?

GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD : Kinda shocked at the lawlessness. I mean, if a GOP pres decided to Executive Order a Berlin Wall type barrier along the South 40 - ppl would totally freak. Methinks the GOP will NOT fall into an over reaction trap - instead they'll use the Cruz Maneuver:

“Step number one that I have called for is the incoming majority leader should announce that if the president implements this lawless amnesty, that the Senate will not confirm any executive or judicial nominees, other than vital national security positions, for the next two years, unless and until the president ends this lawless amnesty,” Cruz told Chris Wallace on Faux News Sunday. “If the majority leader would announce that, it would impose real consequences on the president and the administration.”

Cruz didn’t say if he regards the attorney general as a “vital national security position,” leaving open the question of whether he wants the GOP to block confirmation of Loretta Lynch, 44’s nominee to replace Attorney General Eric The Red Holder.

“The second constitutional power we’ve got is the power of the purse,” Cruz continued. “And we should fund, one at a time, the critical priorities of the federal government, but also use the power of the purse to attach riders.”

By riders, Cruz is likely referring to an appropriations bill that would fund the Department of Homeland Security but stipulate that none of the funds appropriated may be used to implement 44’s recent executive orders. And, following Cruz’s thinking, if 44 vetoes that bill next year, it wouldn’t result in a government-wide shutdown because Congress will have passed bills funding other parts of government.

Cruz’s plan is very similar to the one he hoped to execute during the fight to defund the health care thing, with one crucial difference: Republicans now control the Senate, so Harry Reid, in theory, can’t block the bills that would fund the rest of government.

Mass Deportation is very doable - after all - if the Germans can tote off over half that many folks and kill them - we can certainly carry off that many folks to their nation of origin and ensure they have a sack lunch on the bus.

Or how about fining sanctuary cities for helping craft and continue the entire sorry mess to begin with? And the sudden stoppage of the drain on municipalities resources for illiterate and semi literate unskilled workers and families as they shed the 'shadow dwellers' by the bus loads simply raises quality of life for citizens.

The Right Planet : So often times those of us who want a secure border and current immigration laws to be enforced are labeled as “xenophobes,” “racists,” and the like, by the rampagin’ “open borders” crowd—the implication being we’re “anti-immigrant.” Hey, I have no problem with legal immigration. I think it’s a good thing. But we have immigration laws, like most nations do, thank you very much. George Stephanopoulos asked the president, "If you can selectively enforce immigration law, what prevents another president from not enforcing tax laws?" Obama's response? Oh, that would be wrong. And how do legal immigrants feel about Obama's imperial decree to grant executive amnesty after they followed all the rules? You can read more about that here. Back out quiet.

JoshuaPundit: First we have to start by understanding this. This was not about compassion, or fairness or the good of the nation. It was about politics. The president's aim here is to create a brand new bloc of government-dependent Democrat voters. See if in one year or so there isn't a push by the Democrats and this president to provide these people with a streamlined 'path to citizenship' and voting. "After all, they're here, they're paying taxes..."

The other reason it was done in this way is because the president hopes to provoke the Republicans into a government shutdown come December 12th and recreate what happened previously, where he deliberately shut down things that would most impact and inconvenience the American people while blaming it on the GOP while his media sycophants sing the same song.. In his mind, he's still as popular as he was back then and the midterm elections meant nothing.

I think the Republican caucus did exactly the right thing by getting out of Dodge just now. They need to plan a cohesive strategy, some of which I explored here.And they need to feel out who's really on board and whom isn't. For instance, Senator McCain, the creature of his biggest financial backer UniVision cannot be trusted.

Lawsuits are not only useless but take far too long. First, everything connected with the president's new executive diktat can be defunded by congress, and anyone whom believes the nonsense that entities like the USCIS can't be defunded 'because they operate using fees rather than appropriations' needs to click on the above link to find out exactly how ridiculous that is.

They can halt any of his nominations and appointments, saying quite frankly that since this president has shown his contempt for the incoming congress and the separation of powers, they feel under no obligation to cooperate with him on anything.

They can pass common sense legislation that forces him to use his veto pen and shows whom the real obstructionists in congress are. They can block anything he plans to do including his planned global warming $3 billion slush fund and honestly say that until he reverses himself, that's simply how things are going to be. This can easily apply to ObamaCare also if the Supreme Court doesn't gut it first, since the president has said he will never sign any legislation repealing or changing it in any way.

I personally would extend the defunding to the president's discretionary funds. No more lavish fundraisers and vacations on the public's dime, severe cuts in his and the First Lady's personal staff..no more personal chefs, masseuses, hair stylists and 'assistants.' No more pricey state dinners and parties featuring Hollywood entertainers, no more greens fees for his golf games. Let the president pay for these himself, if he likes.

And most important of all, the very first thing the new House and Senate need to do is pool their resources and hire a special prosecutor and staff to collect evidence so the House can prepare articles of impeachment.

I think a lot of people get confused and think that impeachment is a legal remedy because it has a legal process. It is actually a political remedy, and only works when a president has gone so far off the rails as to be unpopular enough with the American people that it can succeed. I think the president (whose approval ratings I think are at least 5-10% exaggerated in his favor) is at that point now, and that will become even more obvious if the articles are prepared properly and the American people get a good summation of everything this lawless, would-be autocrat has done to disgrace his office.

At that point, even many Democrats are likely to urge him to resign to save themselves, dangling a pre-arranged pardon okayed by soon to be interim President Biden as an incentive.

Once he's gone, Congress can simply reverse what he's done. And a far better solution to illegal migration can be formulated, one that protects the borders and deports people here illegally whom do not benefit America in the 21st century while importing other immigrants who do.

Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason: President Obama knows once the newly elected Republican led Senate and House members convene in 2015 they will not pass a comprehensive immigration bill he would sign, which is why he issued this executive order. This action defies the powers granted to the executive branch in our Constitution. Even President Obama acknowledged on many occasions he did not have the power to act unilaterally on this issue.

The President is correct in saying that rounding up and deporting millions of illegal immigrants in this country is not practical. He said that by issuing this executive order he was being fair and just. The Republicans should appeal to the immigrants who have waited for years to come here legally, and to every American citizen whose hard earned tax money will be used to pay for this illegal “amnesty.” Is the President being fair and just to them?

I would love to see the Republicans put forth a bill building on this executive order to enforce and enhance border security, assure criminals who are caught are deported immediately, and those given permission to stay under this executive order should never be permitted to become American citizens unless they leave the country and apply through the proper legal channels to do so.

The goal of the left in granting amnesty to illegal immigrants is to create a new voting block of millions of voters who will vote for Democrat candidates. The Republicans can stop this by not allowing them to become citizens. Let them work here legally, out of the shadows, and take advantage of the opportunities available to them. They should not be rewarded for their crimes by being given a special path to citizenship. I believe this is fair and just, not just to the illegal immigrants, but to those of us who are American citizens by birth or who went through the proper legal channels to become American citizens.

The President will not sign such a law, but the Republicans can show the American people that the purpose of this executive order is to gain millions of new Democrat voters and has nothing to do with compassion.

Well, there you have it!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. and every Tuesday morning, when we reveal the weeks' nominees for Weasel of the Week!

And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it...or any of the other fantabulous Watcher's Council content.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y'know?

Sunday, November 23, 2014

Convicted and disgraced former Israeli PM Ehud Olmert has agreed to testify against former Labor PM and Defense minister Ehud Barak over accusations that Barak received millions of shekels in bribes related to lucrative government military contracts.

The allegations first surfaced in a report aired on Israeli TV. Channel 10 aired a great many tapes secretly made by OLmert's close aide Shula Zaken, who has since turned state’s witness against Olmert.

In the conversation in question Channel 10 broadcast, recorded when Barak was still serving as Israel’s defense minister three years ago, Olmert called Barak “a lunatic,” and said Barak was “jealous” of a plush Audi car Olmert used to have.

Ehud Barak's alleged accomplice was his brother-in-law, attorney Doron Cohen, who arranged the deals and handled the money.

It should be noted that Ehud Barak has denied the allegations. And that he played a large role in forcing Olmert to resign as Prime Minister after the corruption scandals surrounding Olmert began to emit their foul stench. So this could be payback.

Another possibly mitigating factor is that knowing what we know of Ehud Olmert, it's unlikely that this particular rat would have allowed Ehud Barak to pull off something like this without demanding a cut for his silence.

However, there's no doubt that Ehud Barack had both motive and opportunity as Israel's defense minister to accept bribes for military contracts, and it certainly would explain a few questionable deals that went down while he was defense minister..as well as his cozy relationship with certain people in Washington DC.

Olmert is already facing six years in prison, a two-year suspended term, and a fine of NIS 1 million ($289,000) for accepting bribes in a separate graft case known as the “Holyland affair,” revolving around a large Jerusalem residential development that occurred when he was Jerusalem's mayor. He's only out now on bail pending his appeal.

Friday, November 21, 2014

The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast, and the results are in for this week's Watcher's Council match up.

“This morning in Jerusalem Palestinians attacked Jews who were praying in a synagogue.To have this kind of act, which is a pure result of incitement, of calls for ‘days of rage,’ of just irresponsibility, is unacceptable.”

“People who have come to worship God in a sanctuary of a synagogue were… murdered in a holy place in an act of pure terror and senseless brutality and murder.” - U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry

“There are two races of men in this world but only these two: the race of the decent man and the race of the indecent man.” - Victor Frankl, Auschwitz survivor, in 'Man's Search For Meaning'

"It's not enough for us to say: ‘There are those carrying out Ribat’ (religious war over land claimed to be Islamic). We must all carry out Ribat in the Al-Aqsa [Mosque]. It's not enough for us to say: ‘The settlers have arrived [at the Mosque]’. They have come, and we have to prevent them, by any means necessary, from entering the Sanctuary. They have no right to enter it. They have no right to defile it. - Mahmoud Abbas, inciting violence on Official Palestinian Authority TV, Oct. 19, 2014

This week's winning essay was Joshuapundit's -The Blood Of Zion Cries Out My reaction on the day four rabbis and Druze traffic cop who tried to stop the killers were murdered with guns and meat cleavers in a Jerusalem synagogue. Here's a slice:

Early this morning, four Jews at morning prayers were murdered in a synagogue in Jerusalem after two Palestinian broke in and assaulted the worshipers with gunfire and meat cleavers.

Many others were wounded and four are in critical condition.

The terrorist attack took place in Har Hof a predominantly Orthodox neighborhood at the at the Kehilat Yaakov synagogue on Agasi Street.

The Murder victims were identified as Rabbi Moshe Twersky, the head of the Torat Moshe yeshiva, 59; 40-year-old Rabbi Aryeh Kupinsky; 50-year-old Rabbi Kalman Levine; and 68-year-old Rabbi Avraham Shmuel Goldberg(HY"D). Rabbi Kupinsky, Rabbi Levine and Rabbi Twersky were all American citizens, while Rabbi Goldberg was a British subject. A Druze policeman, 30-year-old Master Sergeant Zidan Sif subsequently died of his wounds as well, and all Israel will mourn and honor him.

The killers stormed the synagogue at 7 AM local time. There was no warning and no way for the victims to defend themselves.The rabbis were murdered during the sacred prayer of Shimoneh Esrei, with siddurim (prayer books) in their hands and their tefillum on.

Eye witness Ya'akov Amos said: 'The terrorist moved to within a metre of me then started shooting. One, two, three, bang, bang, bang. I immediately hit the ground and tried to protect myself with a prayer stand. He kept screaming 'Allah hu'Akbar'.

There was blood everywhere, so much that one of the medical workers slipped in it and broke his leg.

The international reaction was interesting. Even U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry seemed shocked, with his voice quavering. He even used the "T" word and called for an end to incitement against Jews.

Phillip Hammond, Britain's Foreign Secretary contented himself with a bloodless statement that 'both sides' should seek to 'reduce tension.' President Obama, of course, said much the same thing. Somehow, I doubt they would have merely talked about both sides reducing tension if four imams had been murdered by a Jew and Qu'rans profaned in this way.

Israel's economics minister Naftali Bennett was interviewed by the BBC today, and provides us with another indication of exactly how sick and depraved Britain has become when it comes to Israel and the Jews.

(just a hint - when Bennett mentions Abu Mazen, he is using Mahmoud Abbas's nom de guerre, the terrorist name he used as Arafat's second-in-command.)

Notice how the interviewer doesn't even address the issue of Abbas inciting terrorism, but pulls the case of an Arab bus driver who died yesterday, as though that made the savage murder of four Jews at prayer legitimate. That Arab driver, by the way, had a full investigation and an autopsy done on him and there is no doubt he committed suicide. Unlike the Palestinian Authority, Israel jails murderers no matter who they are.

I really felt like saying 'Kol Hakavod' when Bennett held up a picture of one of the victims, which the interviewer hastily told him to put down lest he upset the gentle sensibilities of her viewers. I think it is absolutely essential to do just that - to let the British public see what their government is funding and supporting. And I hope it upsets them to the point of utter shame.

At the end of the interview, Bennett says that Britain is going to have to make a choice of whether they support the Free World or not. As I'm sure Bennett knows, the British Government has already made that choice.Which is why, perhaps, they feel compelled to put up with soldiers being beheaded in broad daylight and no go areas for police and non-Muslims in London and other large British cities.

The murderers were both killed in a shootout with police at the scene. They were Ghassan and Oday Abu Jamal from the Jabal Mukaber neighborhood in east Jerusalem. Needless to say, they were acclaimed as heroes and martyrs by all the factions of the Arabs whom call themselves Palestinians.

"We responded with shouts of joy when we received the news about their deaths," Ala'a Abu Jamal said of his cousins Ghassan and Uday Abu Jamal to Yedioth Aharonoth. "People here distributed candies to guests who visited us, and there was joy for the martyrs."

In a message published on its official new website Al-Resalah, Hamas said the attack was “a quality development in fighting the occupation. We highly value the heroism of its operatives.” Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri praised the attack on Qatari news channel Al-Jazeera as “heroic,” calling for more attacks of the same kind.

Hamas MP Mushir Al-Masri happily wrote on Twitter that “Jerusalem has nothing but men who love martyrdom. The heroes of the knife are in Jerusalem. The heroes of the run-over [car attacks] are in Jerusalem. In Jerusalem men take revenge.”

And he posted this on his Facebook page:

The Arab killer is asking 'Where are they hiding?" Needless to say, in spite of what this cartoon shows none of the worshipers were armed.

And Fatah? Mahmoud Abbas, AKA Abu Mazen issued a 'condemnation' that wasn't one. In a statement (in English, not Arabic)it said that “The Palestinian presidency" condemns violence "from whatever source" and "demands an end to the invasions of Al-Aqsa Mosque and the provocations of the Settlers."

In other words, 'So sorry, but unless you surrender Jerusalem to us expect more of the same.'

This is the same Mahmoud Abbas who accused Jews of “contaminating” Al-Aqsa Mosque last week, who just a few days ago was telling his people, in Arabic, to 'defend Jerusalem' by any means necessary. This is the same Mahmoud Abbas who said nothing when Fatah published cartoons and Facebook posts encouraging terrorist attacks on Jews and “days of rage” to defend the 'threatened' Al-Aqsa.

Tawfik Tirawi, former chief of the Palestinian General Security in the West Bank and a member of Fatah’s Central Committee made it even plainer, and in Arabic. Today he told a radio station in Hebron that the attack was “nothing but a reaction to the recent crimes of the occupation and the settlers in occupied Jerusalem and across the nation. The threats of the occupation against our people and the Palestinian leadership, represented by the president, will only increase our efforts in safeguarding our rights.”

His remarks were reprinted on Fatah's official Facebook page.

I should make something clear here. This is not the fault of Abbas, or Hamas, or any of the Arabs who identify themselves as Palestinians.

It is the fault of the Israeli government.

A significant number of the Palestinians are simply acting as they have always acted since the 1920's, and these tendencies were unleashed even further once Arafat and the PLO were allowed in to take over after Oslo.

Israeli governments since Oslo have always allowed themselves to be pressured to ignore these instances of sheer horror...to release convicted murderers, to make concessions to the terrorist entities on Israel's borders, and most of all to avoid finishing them off entirely when their violence and bloodshed mandated a response. This has been especially true since Barack Obama, who styles himself as the Palestinian's very own community organizer entered the White House.

Is it any wonder that this sort of thing continues to happen? Is it really so puzzling that after allowing Hamas to continue in Gaza and maintaining any kind of relationship with Abbas and the PLO once they allied themselves openly with Hamas that they would resort back to Arafat's tactics?

Yasser Arafat himself outlined for his followers what this war was really about. On Jordanian TV, right after signing the Oslo Accords he was criticized for signing a peace agreement with the Jews. He responded by reminding his audience of the Peace of Hubidiyeh, a treaty Mohammed made with the Quraysh tribe that he violated as soon as he was strong enough to massacre them, a story every Muslim knows. And then he outlined exactly what this war was about, saying that "either the Jews will push us into the sea or we will push them into the sea."

Arafat, the leaders of Hamas and numerous members of Fatah have sung the same songs for years. Is it their fault that Israeli governments for years have refused to take them seriously?

In our non-Council category, the winner was Victor Davis Hanson – A Moral primer submitted by Joshuapundit. Hanson is an old classicist among his other virtues.In this essay, he looks at the state of America and the world, and especially the president who leads us and sees a lack of political and personal morality as a deadly problem, possibly a terminal one for our republic. Do read it.

See you next week! Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. and every Tuesday morning, when we reveal the weeks' nominees for Weasel of the Week!And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it...or any of the other fantabulous Watcher's Council content.And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y'know?